The Staggeringly Impossible Outcome for Ohio's '05 Election

[lizzieforkerry]

This is a good HuffPo blog breaking down Fritakis' article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/the-staggeringly-impossib_b_10589.html

As usual, the Free Press' heroic Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are on the case. Their article on what happened on ballot issues 1 through 5 last week is A MUST READ for anybody who still gives the slightest damn about whatever democracy might be left in America.

I'll try to summarize here briefly. There were five initiatives on the ballot last week. Issue 1 was a controversial proposition for $2 billion in new state spending. The Christian Right was opposed (because some of the new funds might go to stem cell research), but otherwise, the Republican Governor Taft's Administration (he recently plead guilty to several counts of corruption) was pushing it hard alongside progressives in the state.

The Columbus Dispatch's pre-election polling, which Fritrakis and Wasserman describe as "uncannily accurate for decades", called the race correctly within 1% of the final result. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 2.5% with a 95% confidence interval. On Issue 1, the Dispatch poll was right on the money. They predicted 53% in favor, the final result was 54% in favor.

But then came Issues 2 through 5 put forward by < ahref="http://ReformOhioNow.org">ReformOhioNow.org -- a bi-partisan coalition pushing these four initiatives for Electoral Reform in the Buckeye State largely in response to their shameful '04 Election performance led by the extremely partisan Secretary of State (and Bush/Cheney '04 Co-Chair) J. Kenneth Blackwell.

snip

[IndyOp]

1. Excellent - I've got to go bookmark HuffPo!

Ariana is carrying her weight - and then some - these days!

:woohoo:

[IndyOp]

2. Kicked and Recommended! (nt)

[David Dunham]

3. The key is what were the results in the non-touch screen districts.

From what I heard, proposals 2-5 lost heavily in the non-touch screen districts in Ohio. If that is accurate, then they lost period. We have no Diebold-excuse to fall back on.

[Land Shark]

10. Good Lord there are many ways to beat any election system

the difference is in the ease with which it is done and how big the payoffs are.
With touch screens the payoffs are particularly high and the evidence left is particularly low.
Paper ballot systems, particularly when their checks and balances are compromised, are certainly no stranger to shenanigans. It's just that they bend and flex less easily than touch screens.

ON EDIT: BY the way the charg of "electronic manipulation" includes far more than touch screens. Tabulators are computer/electronic, optical scanners can be misprogrammed, ballot definition errors can occur, all are outside touch screens but still "electronic"

[tinrobot]

17. The vote isn't altered in the touch screen machines

Several people have reported that it's altered at the central tabulator, called the GEMS system. It has a back door that allows someone to change the final tally.

It's much easier to alter one central program than place a hack on thousands of touch screen machines. Plus, when you hack the tabluator, you can alter votes cast on optical scan and punch cards as well.

[BJW]

25. depends on ballot security and accuracy of count

[Ms. Toad]

31. My understanding is that

They only broke 40% in two counties statewide: Athens and Franklin (Columbus).

[philb]

37. Some of the non-touch screen counties are very conservative counties

the "liberal" vote is more in the big counties that have touch screens

similar in Florida

[philb]

39. Its easy to rig touch screens and tabulators; which most counties have

the question is how do you know whether the touch screens and tabulators were rigged?

I think exit polls are likely more accurate indicators of the real vote than the official count in the U.S. these days.

And large well done polls are likely more accurate than the official vote as well.

And the EIRS hotline is possible to give a good indication of what the actual results were if it is supported by a major effort.

[jimshoes]

4. I too have a hard time

believing those issues did so poorly here. I fear though that fair elections in Ohio might be a thing of the past. I hope something can be done.

[David Dunham]

5. How do you guys explain these issues' loss in non-touch screen areas?

I'm sorry to say but it was the OH voters, who lean Republican, not Diebold or Blackwell, that killed issues 2-5.

[jimshoes]

6. I can't explain it

I just can't believe it. It's no secret that there are republican crooks and thieves running this state. Our own Governor has about a 15% approval rating. Why the repubs are still a viable entity around here is mind boggling to me.

[papau]

7. stuffing ballot totals doesn't require touch screen-nor does losing votes

old fashioned cheating by the GOP still goes on.

[bullimiami]

8. tabulators. the whole election goes through computers.

looks like they flipped the results.
so improbable I cannot believe it was the voters.

[Land Shark]

11. the "beauty" of a flip is that everything matches the pollbooks and

the total number of voters remains the same.

Also, voting twice on "enemy" ballots creating overvotes is also a good trick, cancels the "wrong" votes but the number of voters is still correct and the accounting works out. DUMB DUMB voters. amazing how dumb those voters are, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. surely not a literal flip

The issues did somewhat beter in Dem counties than Rep counties, as you would expect -- although I don't think any county gave a majority to any of 2 through 5.

Fitrakis and Wasserman manage to eke an entire column out of "either the poll was wrong, or the vote count was wrong." To which a lot of us respond, "Yes, and?"

[Land Shark]

43. Yes, and INVESTIGATE

why do you have trouble finishing this sentence OTOH?

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. huh?

If you mean the sentence "Yes, and?", I suppose because Ohio doesn't have a mandatory partial manual recount.

As for investigation, I actually spend time just about every day investigating the 2004 election, and now I will probably spend time investigating the 2005 election.

[Chi]

9. In case you are interested...

Heya David
http://hamburgsteak.sandwich.net/mirrors/EyeOnOhio/

If not....carry on.

[darkmaestro019]

12. Who/how were the votes in the non-touch-screen counties counted?

And how do YOU explain the poll numbers? ; )

[Land Shark]

13. Let's stop the investigation, before it starts (who would do THIS?)

clearly a lot of investigation needed now.

[BJW]

26. well, for starters

what were the pre-election polling results for these areas? Were these areas "known" republican strongholds? Also, what was the level of ballot security and the accuracy of opti-scanning. Instead of relying on simplistic black/white reasoning, like what you're doing here, read up on how voting systems actually work. It's akin to making sausage....

[Ms. Toad]

32. It was OH voters,

but not those who lean Republican - voters who lean in a lot of different ways killed issues 2-5. More accurately, the amendments committed suicide. Read here: http://www.reformohionow.org/downloads/ron_amendments.pdf. Pages 1-8 were actually on the ballot as summaries of the amendments, which can be found on pages 9-19.

I voted against 2 of them, and more than half of my liberal friends voted against all 4 (Most switching from leaning Yes to voting No upon reading the actual text of the amendments or a summary for the first time in the 24 hours preceding the election.)

[struggle4progress]

14. Has American Democracy died .. in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats?

Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats?

by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
November 11, 2005

<snip> The November 6 Dispatch poll showed Issue Two passing by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that predicted for Issue One.

But on November 8, the official vote count showed Issue Two going down to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5% in favor. To say the outcome is a virtual statistical impossibility is to understate the case. For the official vote count to square with the pre-vote Dispatch poll, support for the Issue had to drop more than 22 points, with virtually all the undecideds apparently going into the "no" column. <snip>

... Though again opposed by the Christian Right, Issue Three drew an extremely broad range of support from moderate bi-partisan citizen groups and newspapers throughout the state. The Sunday Dispatch poll showed it winning in a landslide, with 61% in favor and just 25% opposed.

Tuesday's official results showed Issue Three going down to defeat in perhaps the most astonishing reversal in Ohio history, claiming just 33% of the vote, with 67% opposed. For this to have happened, Issue Three's polled support had to drop 28 points, again with an apparent 100% opposition from the previously undecideds. <snip>

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559

[Land Shark]

15. Given a proven ability to delay recounts past final certification

without consequences, this frees up more dangerous techniques like flipping results, which (unlike some other errors) WILL be detected in a recount.

[kster]

16. Kick..nt

[mirandapriestly]

18. Those numbers make me wonder how much * really lost by. nt

[BamaBecky]

19. kick

[DemReadingDU]

21. I had someone tell me that the voters

decided to vote no on the issues. To them, it was that simple! More people turned out to vote no than the poll indicated would be likely to vote yes.

[lizzieforkerry]

22. But just as many of these "extra" voters voted on Issue one, too

yet that remained identical to the pre-election polls. His point is that why was the Columbus Dispatch correct on 1 and so wrong on 2-5.

[DemReadingDU]

23. These people can't be convinced

I agree something is not right with the polls vs. the final results. But people assume voters went to vote Tuesday, and voted yes on Issue 1, and no on Issues 2-5.

It is difficult to change their minds when they don't think there is a problem with our voting system. I had the article in my hand, and still, they weren't convinced there was anything amiss. So sad and frustrating.

[PATRICK]

27. Asking this out of ignorance

of Ohio's ballot and vote but in NY it was the plain language and practical nature of Prop #2 that earned a quiet victory and the complex language and controversy over Prop #1 for budget reform that automatically doomed it. You needed more examples for a controlled experiment but then the more propositions, the more money demanded, the more impatient the voter gets and nays them all.

The people who frame propositions know all this very well and if they really want one and spend millions in ads AND even so use the complex long language it is greeted by even greater justifiable suspicion.
Sadly it comes down to very predictable reasons that have little to do with the people's wishes or the merit of the proposal. Sometimes the proposals themselves could be ploys that have noting to do with the proposal itself.

I have no clue about any of the factors but exit polling could be the bellwether sign of tampering to give strength to speculative analysis. Am I missing that? Sometimes the theories outrace the evidence.

[Ms. Toad]

29. Your question is right on:

Check here for the text of the amendments:

http://www.reformohionow.org/downloads/ron_amendments.pdf

The amendments begin on page 9 and run through page 19.

The SUMMARIES (which appeared on the ballot) are nearly as long as the amendments (Start on page 1 and read through page 8.)

Many individuals including most of the liberals I spoke after the election switched their intended vote (from YES to NO) within the last 24 hours - after either finally getting around to reading the amendments or (failing that) reading the summary in the booth).

None of the polls (that I am aware of) provided the amendment language as part of the polling process - and based on the single sentence summary of each most liberals leaned in favor of the amendments. Unfortunately, the vote was not on the single sentence concept, but mind numbing details that are barely comprehensible when read 24 hours in advance (unfortunately when many read them for the first time) and not at all in the ballot booth.

Personally, I voted for two and against two, the same way I would have polled. One of those votes was a matter of holding my nose at the details and voting based almost solely on my distrust of Blackwell. Even so, it was not absolutely certain until I punched the stylus through the ballot. Had I changed that vote, it would have been from YES to NO.

Based on how I know a significant number of my own friends leaned ahead of time, and their dramatic switch in the 24 hours preceding the election when they got around to doing their homework, the results do not surprise me a bit. I only know one other individual who voted as intended ahead of time (Yes on all 4) and, like me, that decision was made on reading the amendments well in advance and having time to wrestle with the not insignificant issues.

BTW, Issue 1 was a bond issue - not at all comparable in terms of impact or complexity.

[roseBudd]

34. I voted yes on all 4 but I knew it wouldn't matter after seeing the ads

the opposition ran, plus the newspaper endorsements against. The only one I thought might have a chance was 2, and purely for lazy reasons, who wouldn't want to "mail it in"

[Ms. Toad]

38. Issue 2 is the only one I am even mildly surprised at.

There were valid concerns about all of them (having little to do with the trash ads that ran against them).

From my perspective, I could not get past the concerns I had about the details (not the principle) of nonpartisan redistricting or campaign finance reform. I had fewer concerns about the details of the state election board - and more concern about Blackwell - so I held my nose and voted for that one. My spouse voted opposite me on redistricting and the state election board. Again, the principle was good, but she couldn't get past the details of the state election board reform.

Most folks I know who thought seriously about campaign finance reform were concerned about embedding specific dollar caps in what is supposed to be a permanent amendment to the constitution, that can only be updated by a statewide vote.

[roseBudd]

35. Issue 1 TV ads were very positive, there was no downside portrayed,

newpapers endorsed and there were no negative attack ads against. Most important was the verbage "create jobs" "wont't raise taxes" where 2-5 was portrayed as "costing taxpayers 90 million".

[PATRICK]

41. So it does look possible

that for the mainstream voter and even liberals, a negative lock set in facing the numbingly long propositions and only the non controversial first one snuck in- and the numbing similarity of the rejection numbers shows a typical kneejerk voting pattern set in. The fewer educated and determined to read the detail voters make little difference in this case. Some of the wise take this kind of writing as something to vote down on principle.

Detailed language is often necessary to pass the barriers of future legal challenges and to seal the barn door against dangerous misinterpretation, BUT to ignore the actual effect on most voters that surpasses the merit of the props themselves is to push an impossible burden uphill. Ads can hurt but not save all damage from language weariness. How many times do serious proponents have to learn the hard way to kiss the baby not drone and hone the words. Short, easy to grasp, popular and unequivocal, not opposed by mainstream ad campaigns.
Or brother, I would like to see the educational cavalcade of authoritative support than can overcome the reality of the voting booth on election night. It has been tried and tried in NY and humbled all the powers that be, all the pundits that sought to pontificate.

I STILL would like to see exit polls as the best decisive proof on this point before more people possibly embarass themselves. Something beside this discouraging anecdotal support for the poll change. Especially since this would be used to bolster the much different case made for the sudden voter switch of 2004. There should never have been that degree of ballot shock when the voter actually faced the full wording of the several propositions in the voting line. I can imagine the guilt and the flailing of people now forced to rely on memories of TV ads and the immediate sense of utter frustration. I thought OUR propositions were wordy. Maybe we are not as well educated here.

[roseBudd]

49. We can't compare such a low turnout election to preelection polling

not exit polling. In addition polling is expensive and I doubt there was anywhere near the polling that occured for the presidential.

I guarantee that the demographic I work with when I canvass knew nothing about Issue 2-5 before they stepped in the booth.

I thought 2 might pass, but I never expected 3-5 to pass. Only policy wonks and people who spend lots of time on lefty web sites even know about Coingate, gerrymandering and Blackwell campaign bias.

[Algorem]

24. Stephanie Miller was just talking about this

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/

[Amaryllis]

28. And they call US conspiracy theorists...how much evidence does it take to

prove a conspiracy? Looks like we are staring one in the face, and it ain't no theory.

[Ms. Toad]

30. Have you read the text of the amendments?

If not, you really should (http://www.reformohionow.org/downloads/ron_amendments.pdf) before you chalk this particular election result up to conspiracy. The 8 page summaries appeared on the ballot - and most folks had never seen more than a single sentence summary of any of them prior to entering the ballot booth.

[Land Shark]

33. They will be kicked out of the voting booth before they finish reading

first a polite nod, then after that more aggressive action, because it's a known technique to slow down voting by tying up voting machines, reading referenda word for word; don't think we can assume they got enlightened in the voting booth.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Folks I know

Didn't get enlightened at all, and because they weren't enlightened (either in the booth or beforehand) they vote "No" rather than risk sticking something with even more detail than the summaries in the constitution - and the folks I spoke with who told me they voted against all four had previously told me they were leaning "Yes."

The advance billing was that the amendments "simply" imposed campaign contribution limits, guaranteed the right to no questions asked absentee balloting, created a non-partisan state election board, and created a bipartisan redistricting committee. If you read the amendments, you can see there is nothing simple about them.

Absentee voters who voted at their election boards ahead of time were reported to have taken 20 minutes each.

[Land Shark]

42. But the issue is: the flip in the polls relative to the vote

here you have people IN FAVOR OF IT by a certain percentage. Then they flip to the opposite.

I am sure there are always lots of folks who vote no, if in doubt. That is not the issue. (elections are so shrouded in secrecy people just grab at straws, sometimes) The issue is the people that were in favor, then changed their mind. (or why the polls would be so wrong, but right on #1)

People making cases for why the referenda coulda lost are mostly MISSING THE POINT. Explain the flip

[Ms. Toad]

46. What I have explained in numerous posts

is precisely the flip, based on actual discussions I had with liberal voters around the time the polls were taken, and then again post election. Perhaps it was not as clear in my response to your post as it was in other posts in this thread and elsewhere.

Of the liberals I spoke with in advance of the election, all were leaning in favor of some (and generally all) of the propositions. More than half of those had not read the amendments by 24 hours prior to the election (the timing of the polls I have seen cited, and the time I had my discussions with them), and would have polled as "Yes" votes.

Post election we talked about how they actually voted, and the only ones who voted in favor of any of the amendments were the ones who had read the amendments more than 24 hours in advance. The remaining liberal voters switched to voting No on ALL issues after the time the poll was taken, based on having read (or being overwhelmed by and not reading) either the amendments or the summaries after the poll was taken.

From a personal perspective, on the state election board issue I was very close to flipping to No in the booth. I read the amendments in September and really struggled with whether I could vote in favor of any of them. The day before the election I would have polled Yes on two and No on the other two, the way I actually voted - but it could just as easily have been one Yes and three No until the last second, and I would have been part of the flip.

Issue #1 was a bond issue, not a constitutional amendment so comparing polling on Issue #1 to polling on Issue #2-#5 is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruits - but there are major differences. Issue #1 was also relatively well explained in advance of the election. Issues #2-#5 were not. People I spoke with who were generally supportive of the concepts were shocked when they got around to doing their homework and actually read the amendments or the summaries.

[Bill Bored]

53. I don't think I would have voted No.

If I were in favor of an amendment with only a superficial understanding of it, and then realized I didn't know enough about the details, rather than vote No, which would help to kill it, I would ABSTAIN and let those who knew more than I did about it vote the way they wanted and let the more knowledgeable voters decide.

The first rule of elections should be, Do No Harm. If you don't know enough about an issue, don't vote on it. Voting No could be as bad as voting Yes if you don't know what you're voting for or against.

Unless I had a real concern about the amendment, I would not vote No just because I realized I didn't fully understand the details. I would abstain.

Does this make sense?

So maybe the hack was to switch the Undervotes to No votes. Hmmmm....

[Ms. Toad]

55. That is generally what I do,

but I am not sharing information about what I do or what I predict others theoretically might (or ought to) do, but what people who I spoke with both before (so I know how were leaning at the time of the poll) and after voting (so I know how they voted) actually did in this election, on these issues.

Of that group of people, over half flipped from leaning Yes to voting "No." None of the folks I spoke with abstained - even the one who had not read anything ahead of time and spent very little time trying to decipher the summary on the fly in the ballot booth.

Not every mismatch between polling and reported results is a hack. The switch from polling to reported vote, in this instance, matches what a significant number of real people told me they actually did.

[PATRICK]

44. This should be more urgent

to do a real exit poll of some sort, however belated( a poll that won't have people embarassed to admit kneejerk voting against the props) and by no means go rabid in a way that will backfire into discrediting claims against the 2004 election.

We may have a sense of sour relief that no one even cares enough to revisit a debate that was never allowed to take place by jumping on premature finger pointing now.

It is also possible that the results were still tweaked, considering the pre-election polls going in. We need those exit polls especially in the very peculiar case of what happens when voters suddenly meet those propositions in crammed fine print under a time pressure. Just maybe we won't have to educate the writers and the supporters on the facts of voting life in the future.

Which calls to mind several critical areas where no one is united on the basics and hard lessons learned are forgotten everywhere, every year and mistakes are enthusiastically repeated.

[Kolesar]

40. This Ohio skeptic thinks otherwise

I worked on RON, helping get signatures and knocking on doors. As a previous poster noted, the issues were long and somnambulistic--almost Kerryesque, but I digress. The campaign organizers were manic and made freshman mistakes. We did not have a huge organization. The issues were written by a tweedy prof with no input from the roots radicals. The opposition funded lots of slick commercials. We got stabbed in the back by Cuyahoga Cty Dem Chairman Jimmy "the icepick" Dimora, who produced a robocall message funded by Ohio-First-Energy.

Come another year, things ain't gonna get better here and Ohioans are going to be wishing they had voted for RON--again, Kerryesque.

Thanks for your warm thoughts.

[Ms. Toad]

47. Just a suggestion

Next time, go for amendments that embed the principles clearly and firmly in the constitution. Require the legislature to draft conforming details.

I know that is not a perfect solution, as the legislature is likely to take a number of tries (probably with court pressure) to write conforming legislation. A number of us who support the principles have strong objections to embedding that kind of detail in the constitution. I overcame those objections for two of them, but could not for the other two (and I happen to be a tweedy prof type - so it is not just that a tweedy prof type wrote the issues that was their problem).

[Kolesar]

48. I like that a lot

You have a better understanding of civics than I do (but I feel enlightened). The folks who led RON won't be asking me for input for the next time. My involvement was very much at the retail-politics level. My super planning that is underway is about climate change.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. climate change -- right on!

Someone has to do it.

[Ms. Toad]

56. They probably won't be asking me either

Their philosophy in going for a constitutional amendment with all the gory details was that our opponents are using the constitutional amendment process, so we have to fight back with our own amendments.

That argument reminds me of the old parent-teen impasse...But mom, everyone else is doing it....and the response - if everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you want to do that too?

I think we need to be smarter than the opponents, rather than letting them select the battleground and set the rules.

One of the prime movers and shakers (who may actually be tweedy prof who wrote much of the detail) wasn't terribly thrilled with my suggestion that we not play their game.

On the other hand, now that it has not worked out so well perhaps there will be a bit more openness to trying a different approach...

[demodonkey]

51. A Comment About 2006 Made on DU Last May By ANDY...

Well, IT LOOKS LIKE 2006 HAS COME A LITTLE EARLY IN OHIO!

Marybeth

On the day after the 2006 election....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=368768

Andy_Stephenson (at post #14):
I can tell you now and in advance in case I am not here.

There will be fraud and another election WILL be stolen. If yall aren't oout in the streets at that point...there is no hope for our country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=368768#368933

[FogerRox]

52. Demon Monkey just kicked me in the nuts-- and I earned it

nice post

[Bill Bored]

54. Undervotes switched to NO votes?

Also see post 53.

If I were going to steal this one, I'd switch the UNDERVOTES to NO Votes.

After all, who would complain? All those who didn't know enough about these issues to even VOTE on them? Not bloody likely.

The only question is how to do it exactly? But when Diebold's junk doesn't even REPORT undervotes to begin with, it couldn't be too hard, could it?

[nonny]

57. Zogby survey in my email this morning

Frequently I respond to the Zogby surveys that come to me by email.
This morning's started out with questions about what state I live in -- OHIO
Are you registered to vote?
Did you vote Nov. 8?
How did you vote on Issues 2 through 5?
Did you understand the issues?
etc. etc.

Looks like we may get some more stats on this.

______________________

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE NOV. 8th ELECTIONS? THE REAL STORY COMING SOON TO ZOGBY.COM!

A complete analysis of the important statewide elections in the key states of Virginia, New Jersey, California, and Ohio, where both Democrats and Republicans scored victories and posted losses. Fresh post-election polling data from each state, plus analysis of key mayoral contests, to be included in a special report.

http://www.zogby.com/

[Bill Bored]

58. Keep us posted please! nt

[Nederland]

59. The poll was fatally flawed

It did not replicate the language used by the amendments--it provided summaries.

Plus, the trend lines for the amendments were downward leading up to the election and the final poll included samples that were up to 11 days old and out of date.

[onthebench]

60. A thought I had on polls

As far as polls go let me explain why they usually do not mean much to me. As example from the TV world: the EMMY awards are voted on by members representing different groups within that industry. It is basically a beauty contest similar to any election for any type of office. If you like them you vote for them. If you are affiliated with them you are more likely to like them. The EMMY voters are basically a very small and knowledgable sample of the TV community. This year that community said that South Park was the best animated show for the Kenny Schiavo episode and that Arrested Development was the best overall comedy. The EMMY voters are like a political poll - a small sample of TV voters. But the US population did not agree with the EMMY voters. Arrested Development was rated so low that it is now been cut from sweeps month. Also, Spongebob outpaces South Park in the ratings 10:1. So this is exactly how a small sample poll can be skewed from what the mass population really thinks (assuming that they are smart). That is the epiphany I had over polling numbers. Does that make sense?